The Case for Impeachment

See also:Never Mind Impeachment; Keep your Eyes on the PrizeHow ought Republicans to respond to the growing list of indefensible abuses of power by Barack Obama? Consider what he has done. Obama has created the virtual equivalent of an "enemies list" and used the federal government to persecute these opponents of his plans. Obama has repeatedly and transparently lied to the American people about the misdeeds of his lackeys and his knowledge of those misdeeds. Obama has hidden behind a gaggle of subordinates whose responses to questions sound like the "...to the best of my knowledge at this point in time..." mantra which Richard Nixon's lieutenants recited when called before the House Judiciary Committee in 1974.

Barack Obama committed precisely the sort of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which the Founding Fathers intended to be cause for impeachment. Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, should begin the process of investigating whether Obama should be impeached.

Some conservatives will wince at this approach. They will recall the craven Senate Republicans who effectively acquitted Bill Clinton even before his Senate trial began. The 1998 midterm election, which provided modest gains to Democrats, has been taken as proof that Americans did not want Clinton impeached.

But the wrongdoings of Barack Obama are qualitatively different from the wrongdoings of Bill Clinton. Much of what Clinton did involved sexual misconduct and subsequent lying about that misconduct. Hillary was the principal offended party, and she wanted power more than any moral vindication of the Clintons' very strange marriage. What would have happened if Hillary had divorced Bill and denounced him to America? He well may have been forced out of office, but even so, his offenses related to personal misconduct that hurt individuals.

The crimes of Obama are much more serious, and the victim is not his wife or an intern or a state employee like Paula Jones. Obama's crimes hit at the very heart of American government. He is lying not about his personal life, but rather about the use of the presidency to intimidate and to throttle opposition.

The problem right now is that Obama, through his flacks in the establishment leftist media, is massaging the story so that he is personally insulated from responsibility. What the left cannot do, however, is prevent House Republicans from calling Obama and his lieutenants as witnesses before Congress. The Constitution clearly vests in the House of Representatives the power to conduct this sort of investigation. Impeachment, in fact, is simply the indictment of an official, which is the consequence of an investigation which discovers serious wrongdoings.

What options would Obama have if this sort of investigation were opened and subpoenas issued to Obama and everyone else who is connected with these wrongdoings? If he refused to answer questions, then Obama would appear to have much to hide (which, of course, he does). If he did testify before the House Judiciary Committee, then Obama -- perhaps for the first time in his political life -- would be in an environment which neither he nor his friends could control. A few lies, a few unbelievable lapses of memory, or a few incidents of false indignation would generate more heat on his presidency.

Once the cracks began to appear in the Obama façade and the slime of corruption began to ooze out of these hearings, then Democrat politicians would face the same sort of crisis that Republican politicians faced in 1974: defend the indefensible and hope that Obama will somehow survive, or quietly line up with Republicans and tell Obama that he has to resign.

In some parts of America, Democrats who refuse to take seriously the misconduct of Obama on matters which strike at the very heart of our system of government would face an impossible task of defending their position to voters in 2014. This could easily produce the slow bleeding of House Democrats from supporting Obama to neutrality or even asking for his resignation for the sake of the nation.

Republicans should move quickly and bravely against King Barry and seize the moral high ground the way Democrats did against King Richard in 1974. In fact, Republicans ought now to push the theme that Obama is the Democrats' own Nixon. If they do, then the results of the second midterm of Obama will look much more like 1974 -- which swept the president's political party almost into oblivion -- than 1998. Now, more than ever, is the time to be bold and to attack.

How ought Republicans to respond to the growing list of indefensible abuses of power by Barack Obama? Consider what he has done. Obama has created the virtual equivalent of an "enemies list" and used the federal government to persecute these opponents of his plans. Obama has repeatedly and transparently lied to the American people about the misdeeds of his lackeys and his knowledge of those misdeeds. Obama has hidden behind a gaggle of subordinates whose responses to questions sound like the "...to the best of my knowledge at this point in time..." mantra which Richard Nixon's lieutenants recited when called before the House Judiciary Committee in 1974.

Barack Obama committed precisely the sort of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which the Founding Fathers intended to be cause for impeachment. Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, should begin the process of investigating whether Obama should be impeached.

Some conservatives will wince at this approach. They will recall the craven Senate Republicans who effectively acquitted Bill Clinton even before his Senate trial began. The 1998 midterm election, which provided modest gains to Democrats, has been taken as proof that Americans did not want Clinton impeached.

But the wrongdoings of Barack Obama are qualitatively different from the wrongdoings of Bill Clinton. Much of what Clinton did involved sexual misconduct and subsequent lying about that misconduct. Hillary was the principal offended party, and she wanted power more than any moral vindication of the Clintons' very strange marriage. What would have happened if Hillary had divorced Bill and denounced him to America? He well may have been forced out of office, but even so, his offenses related to personal misconduct that hurt individuals.

The crimes of Obama are much more serious, and the victim is not his wife or an intern or a state employee like Paula Jones. Obama's crimes hit at the very heart of American government. He is lying not about his personal life, but rather about the use of the presidency to intimidate and to throttle opposition.

The problem right now is that Obama, through his flacks in the establishment leftist media, is massaging the story so that he is personally insulated from responsibility. What the left cannot do, however, is prevent House Republicans from calling Obama and his lieutenants as witnesses before Congress. The Constitution clearly vests in the House of Representatives the power to conduct this sort of investigation. Impeachment, in fact, is simply the indictment of an official, which is the consequence of an investigation which discovers serious wrongdoings.

What options would Obama have if this sort of investigation were opened and subpoenas issued to Obama and everyone else who is connected with these wrongdoings? If he refused to answer questions, then Obama would appear to have much to hide (which, of course, he does). If he did testify before the House Judiciary Committee, then Obama -- perhaps for the first time in his political life -- would be in an environment which neither he nor his friends could control. A few lies, a few unbelievable lapses of memory, or a few incidents of false indignation would generate more heat on his presidency.

Once the cracks began to appear in the Obama façade and the slime of corruption began to ooze out of these hearings, then Democrat politicians would face the same sort of crisis that Republican politicians faced in 1974: defend the indefensible and hope that Obama will somehow survive, or quietly line up with Republicans and tell Obama that he has to resign.

In some parts of America, Democrats who refuse to take seriously the misconduct of Obama on matters which strike at the very heart of our system of government would face an impossible task of defending their position to voters in 2014. This could easily produce the slow bleeding of House Democrats from supporting Obama to neutrality or even asking for his resignation for the sake of the nation.

Republicans should move quickly and bravely against King Barry and seize the moral high ground the way Democrats did against King Richard in 1974. In fact, Republicans ought now to push the theme that Obama is the Democrats' own Nixon. If they do, then the results of the second midterm of Obama will look much more like 1974 -- which swept the president's political party almost into oblivion -- than 1998. Now, more than ever, is the time to be bold and to attack.